Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my constituent, Marian Cannon Schlesinger who will celebrate her 100th birthday on September 13, 2012. I am proud to join her legions of friends and admirers, and her loving family, in honoring her.

She was born the fortunate daughter of Dr. Walter Bradford Cannon, an eminent Harvard physiologist, and Cornelia James Cannon, a noted feminist writer. An alumna of Cambridge High and Latin School and Radcliffe College, she is the mother of four children, Andrew, Christina, Stephen and Katharine. Her rich and balanced life has been full of family, politics, painting, writing, and tennis.

A strong Progressive voice and wise chronicler of her times, Marian Schlesinger has been for almost ten decades a force to be reckoned with in the feisty politics of her hometown, Cambridge, Massachusetts. She canvassed for local politicians as a teenager and later campaigned for Adlai Stevenson. With her husband, the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., she was an active participant in President Kennedy's New Frontier. Still today, she follows political news avidly, committed to democratic principles and Democratic ideals.

Early in her life, she became a landscape and portrait painter of distinction, travelling extensively, painting people and places from China to Guatemala to Manchester, New Hampshire. She wrote and illustrated several children's books. In her 70's she began writing her memoirs, and she has published two spirited and insightful volumes chronicling a century of notable experiences in Cambridge, as well as her adventures around the world. She attributes her enduring vitality in part to her love of tennis which she played weekly, well into her mid-80s.

With all these achievements, she made no claim to being a ``celebrity.'' She always was and she is today a good citizen. She made her mark with paints and with words, with hard work and political savvy. As Marian Cannon Schlesinger approaches her 100th birthday, she remains an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 9, marked the one year anniversary of South Sudan's independence. A nation whose self- determination was long in the making, South Sudan had to struggle for its freedom, and millions of its people paid with their lives to reach that milestone. One year later, a country has been established, but its stability and prosperity are unfortunately far from assured.

As we know too well, conflict rages near the border between Sudan and South Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of refugees from Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan have streamed into South Sudan, and their numbers are only increasing. Men, women, and children in the conflict areas have been cut off from humanitarian supplies due to fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N). Near constant bombing by the SAF has forced families to seek refuge in caves and travel hundreds of miles, sometimes by foot, to reach safety from the barrage.

Add to this the stress of fraught negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan on post-CPA implementation issues--such as border demarcation, oil transit, wealth and debt sharing, the status of Abyei--and you have a volatile situation that has been teetering on the edge of a cliff for months. In April, Sudan and South Sudan exchanged cross-border attacks. While negotiations have since resumed under the auspices of the United Nations High-Level Implementation Panel, they have yet to lead to many concrete developments, or to the implementation of the African Union/United Nations-approved road map.

Internally, South Sudan has its own problems that need attention. Violence and ethnic conflict has ebbed and flowed in Jonglei state over the past few years. Although the Government of the Republic of South Sudan has taken steps to address this, real concerns remain. Demobilization and disarmament must continue judiciously. In addition, the RSS government's laudable attempts to root out corruption and graft at all levels have been met with open hostility and far too much opposition from other officials. I encourage His Excellency President Salva Kiir Mayardit to continue fighting corruption and establish high standards for his government. Such an approach will better serve the people of South Sudan in the long run and will help guarantee a democracy founded on the soundest principles.

The United States must continue to pay strict attention to the needs of South Sudan as it further establishes itself with an eye toward longevity. This means supporting responsible policies put forth by the RSS government and telling hard truths to our friends when necessary. We must stress the importance of finding a solution to the oil crisis. We must maintain strides made thus far in development in South Sudan and encourage further progress through proper governance, capacity- building, investment, and promotion of agriculture. The American people have invested too much in the success of South Sudan to turn back now.

So, on this anniversary of South Sudan's independence, I join in celebrating the initial achievement, but I also pledge my commitment to seeing South Sudan emerge as a fully competent, robust, and vibrant democracy in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my vote in favor of H. Res. 568.

I would like to clarify that nothing in this resolution authorizes or empowers military action by the United States or U.S. encouragement of the use of force by any other country at this time. I have long made plain my conviction that all options should be available with respect to the Iranian nuclear program. I do not believe the military option should be taken off the table for future discussion at a future time. However, this is not an appropriate time to seriously consider or even to hint at military strikes. Most informed observers believe sanctions are heavily affecting the Iranian regime and may be moving it to recognize that the international community is united in opposition to its nuclear project. This is not the moment to loosen the screws, nor is it the moment for cheap bellicosity. Issues of peace and war should not be exploited for political advantage.

I vote yes despite these concerns. I regret that the leadership of this House has chosen this moment to make an unnecessary and untimely political statement. I believe this is profoundly ill timed and injudicious. I call upon the House leadership to stop holding such unhelpful votes at politically charged moments. This resolution heightens the rhetoric in a way that is at best unhelpful to ongoing, promising diplomatic efforts and may be actively damaging.

In addition, I note that the inclusion of language regarding Iran's ``nuclear weapons capability'' is overly broad and undefined. When considering such weighty issues, clarity is of the utmost importance, and Congress should be precise in what we are asking for in this resolution so that we may avoid misinterpretation.

Finally, I point out that the last resolve clause, which ``urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear- weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat,'' is unnecessary and insulting. President Obama has always been clear, forceful, and mature when dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. It is evident that this clause is a political statement meant to score points during a political season.

Nonetheless, with these concerns I am required to vote. Though I considered answering present, I want to be clear about my strong stance on this issue. I do believe that a nuclear armed Iran would pose a danger to the peace of the region and the world. So, today I vote in favor of H. Res. 568, with the clear concerns I have stated.

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer clarification of my views regarding H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012. I voted in favor of this legislation, but I feel it is important to note some specific points.

First, I agree with the finding that highlights recent instability in the Middle East-North Africa region in the wake of the Arab Spring. When protests started 14 months ago, I spoke about my hopes for peaceful transitions to democracy, but I also cautioned that history teaches it is often difficult to establish the rule of law and respect for human rights after authoritarian governments are overthrown. We all hoped that the desire for democracy would bring both peace and justice to a troubled region, and I am saddened to see that political instability and, too often, a lack of respect for the rights of individuals and of minorities, are beginning to have far-reaching effects.

That said, I must note that while I am a staunch supporter of Israel's right to defend itself, H.R. 4133 ought to be more precise in its statement that it is U.S. policy to ``provide Israel the military capabilities necessary to deter and defend itself by itself against any threats.'' The bill does not specify which party--the U.S. or Israel-- makes the decision regarding which capabilities may be necessary. The United States should always

maintain the final say when considering sale or provision of its military capabilities. It is good that the bill states that Israel will ``defend itself by itself,'' which makes plain that no one is asking for U.S. troops to be committed to the region through this bill. Hopefully, the time will never come when that might be necessary. If it does, America will make that decision based on the situation at the time.

In addition, Sec. 4(a)(3) contains the Sense of Congress that the U.S. should ``allocate additional weaponry and munitions for the forward-deployed United States stockpile in Israel.'' I want to be clear that by no means do I interpret this as an endorsement of forward-deployed American nuclear weapons in Israel. Such an action would require the explicit authorization of Congress under separate legislation.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment is actually just to piggyback on the previous one that we just adopted by voice vote. It's just a little bit more specific. And honestly, had I known the gentleman was going to offer the other amendment, I might have worked with him a little bit more to make it more specific.

In some levels it's redundant, but this particular one is more specific as to what the issue is. It's actually the specific issue that Mr. Schweikert pointed out, which is the definition of the beneficial owner.

Right now, when Facebook went public, they allowed one or two or three or a handful of investors to be counted as one. Broker-dealers can hold investments on behalf of thousands, an unlimited number of people. The concept of having 2,000 or 1,000, I respect the gentleman's comments previously that there is no magic number--2,000 sounds fine, 1,000 was fine. That's all well and good, and there is no magic answer to that number. I think the compromise that was reached was pretty reasonable.

At the same time, what it doesn't address, which is exactly what the gentleman said earlier, is that each one of these 2,000 people in theory and in reality often do hold the beneficial interest of tens of thousands of people. I'm not talking about mutual funds. But these are the people that have the authority to direct the broker-dealer to act on their behalf. All this says is it does very similar, but it directs the SEC to look at this specific issue, and to do it within 6 specific months and to come back not just with recommendations to Congress, but if they determine it's an appropriate issue, to actually act.

I don't think there is any disagreement that the SEC has the current authority under current law to do this action if they choose to do it. All this says is rather than simply coming back to Congress with a proposal that if they see the appropriate thing to do is act, that they should do it within 6 months. It is very similar. On many levels it overlaps. It's a technical difference, and a more specific amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as the gentleman said in his debate on his bill, even that was unnecessary because the SEC has the authority to do this now. That was unnecessary, and I agree this in theory is unnecessary. The only difference is that this tells the SEC that if they determine that it is a problem, that they are required to act. That's the only major difference here, and they're required to act within any specific period of time.

The previous amendment, also unnecessary pursuant to current law, does direct the SEC look at an issue and make recommendations to Congress. That's all it says. You can actually argue that that might undermine the SEC's authority to take action. I don't think that it does, but you could make that argument if you so chose. This amendment, I agree, is overlapping; but it is not fully redundant, and it keeps the clarification that the SEC is empowered to act now to take action. That's the only major difference.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Will the gentleman agree that the SEC is currently empowered to take these actions on their own without congressional approval?

If the gentleman agrees with that and the gentleman agrees that his amendment, his proposal, which I agree with that we just adopted, doesn't undermine that authority at all, would the gentleman agree with that?

I simply asked under the amendment that we just adopted, your previous amendment, do you think in any way that that undermines the current ability of the SEC to take action? I would think that it doesn't, but I'm just trying to build the record to be clear as to what it does.

I don't disagree with anything that the gentleman just said. I happen to agree that Congress should exercise its responsibility every time, but I also understand and I also agree that we have empowered various agencies across the government to take action on their own. We agree that the SEC has current action; and I would argue very clearly that this amendment, this bill, doesn't change the SEC's authority. If they would come out with a ruling tomorrow that defined ``beneficial owner'' or ``owner of record'' in a different way--that they're fully authorized to do so--all this amendment does is suggest that they do, actually requires them to do so one way or the other.

Even if they disagree with me, this doesn't direct them to agree with me. This simply directs them to act if they determine that they should.

I would also argue very clearly that if that's the determination that they make, that they will act anyway, and that's the way it should be. That's all this amendment does is try to draw a big bold line under a potential massive loophole that could be utilized by not necessarily most people but by a few nefarious people who might intend to defraud people, and that's all this is intended to do--close one more door that can be used by people that should be used.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I believe the gentleman from Connecticut has made the salient points, but I do want to point out that this ``radical'' amendment, under current law, and current regulation, approximately 60 percent of all businesses are already exempt. They're exempted pursuant to a law that we passed in 2003, Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a bipartisan bill. Sarbanes, Oxley. Bipartisan.

All this ``radical'' amendment does is simply say that we're going up from 60 percent to allow 80 percent of the businesses to be exempted from these provisions. Now, I don't think that's radical by any definition. I think that's reasonable. The truth is I have some hesitancies even at these numbers, but I do believe that it's worth trying because it's worth taking a shot to see if some relief will help.

At the same time, it is not a wise provision to take a complete step backwards and say to investors that you're going to go in blind, you're going to be exempted from audits. This bill doesn't do that. I don't think that's the intent.

I don't think that's the intent. I actually think this bill has an underlying good purpose, and I'd like to be able to support it. But I think that the bill goes too far, particularly in this provision.

By going from 60 percent to 80 percent in one fell swoop, I think the risks are too high, having gone through the problems of the early 2000s, the problems of 2008, and the potential problems that are lurking there every single day.

A little extra transparency on behalf of investors is not a bad thing when we're only talking a handful of the largest corporations in the country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This argument makes no sense to me. If we are interested in creating jobs, how does it hurt jobs by simply allowing the people who actually own the company, the shareholders, the ability to have a nonbinding vote on the pay of their CEO? By the way, if they choose to pay the CEO a gazillion dollars, that's fine. It's their money. They can do what they want with it. If, however, they choose to cut the CEO's salary, maybe they could use some of that money to actually create more jobs.

This amendment doesn't affect the creation of one job. It simply recognizes the fact that shareholders own the company. They should be able to decide how to spend their money. Some people have not liked this provision since it was adopted. This is simply an opportunity to take a bite out of something they've never liked. It has no effect whatsoever on the creation of a job. And I would dare say to empower the shareholders might actually free up some corporate money in order to hire one or two more people.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I don't know if I am going to use the whole thing, but this must be Bizarro Congress because I'm about to agree with the Chamber of Commerce. I've been listening to my colleagues on the other side claiming that they're with the President on this one. Something must be wrong.

The Chamber of Commerce has raised the exact same issues that we're raising with this amendment. This amendment doesn't kill this bill. It simply says if you're going to give information to a handful of people, you have to file with the SEC and you have to stand by that information as being legitimate and honest information. That's really all it says. It says it in technical terms, but that's all it says.

By the way, I guess I need to be clear. We don't necessarily agree with everything the chamber says, even on this amendment. They just raise the same issue. And I would like to be clear that no one has since stated it, but even the President himself would like to see some amendments to this bill. I presume some of them will be passed in the Senate; and hopefully when they are, people like me will be a lot more supportive when it comes back.

I just thought it was important to point out I'm not with the chamber very often. When I am, I think that's worthy of note.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the designation of October 22, 2011, as National Archaeology Day. Throughout the month of October, but particularly on the 22nd, archaeological societies across the country will celebrate the thousands of years of history that have been unlocked through artifacts and discoveries.

The American Institute of Archaeology (AIA), headquartered at Boston University and comprised of over 235,000 members, will lead 108 of its local societies in a host of public educational activities to demonstrate the value of archaeological pursuits. AIA will also join with the American Anthropological Association, Society for American Archaeology, Society for Historical Archaeology, and American Schools of Oriental Research in collaborative efforts to reach out to over 100 cities across the United States through online events.

America is rich with history, and many exciting artifacts have been discovered over the years that have helped to illuminate that history. However, archaeology is about so much more than one country. Every archeological discovery opens a door into the past that can reveal important details about how our ancestors lived and what the world around them looked like so many years ago. Archeology also shows us we are united with the global community through shared past and common customs. It affords us a window into our development as a society and provides an opportunity for people of all ages to actively engage in learning about the history of their communities.

Archaeological contributions are key to encouraging greater appreciation of our shared history and cultural heritage. Congress should do all we can to support these efforts. I am proud to join with communities across the country in recognizing October 22nd as National Archaeology Day.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a resolution commending the American Academy of Arts and Sciences on its centuries of work as an independent, non-partisan research institution and on the induction of its newest class of members. The resolution and the list of new inductees to the Academy from Massachusetts follow.

Resolution

Commending the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and

its 231st Class of members on the occasion of the

institution's October 1, 2011, Induction ceremony in

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Whereas these 211 new members earned election to the

American Academy of Arts and Sciences for extraordinary

individual achievement;

Whereas they are among the world's most influential

artists, scientists, scholars, authors, and institutional

leaders;

Whereas in accepting membership into the American Academy

of Arts and Sciences, these individuals agreed to contribute

their talents, experience and knowledge to help the Academy

advance the Nation's social welfare;

Whereas the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is an

august, quintessentially American institution founded by John

Adams and other scholar-patriots during our Nation's brave

struggle for Independence;

Whereas the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, chaired

by Louis W. Cabot and led by President Leslie C. Berlowitz,

is a vital center of knowledge focused on the great

challenges and concerns of the day, from science and

technology policy to global security; social policy to the

humanities; and culture and education;

Whereas members of the American Academy of Arts and

Sciences include more than 250 Nobel laureates, some 100

Pulitzer Prize winners, and the world's most celebrated

artists and performers; and

Whereas the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as an

independent, nonpartisan research institution, exhibits a

standard for civil discourse to which organizations

everywhere can aspire: Now therefore be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) extends heartfelt congratulations to the American

Academy of Arts and Sciences and its newest members;

(2) salutes the American Academy of Arts and Sciences for

its continuing service and intellectual leadership around the

country and across the world; and

(3) wishes the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and

its 231st Class of members good luck and Godspeed with future

Academy endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, this week I missed several rollcall votes and I wish to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present: rollcall No. 699--yes; rollcall No. 700--yes; rollcall No. 701--yes; rollcall No. 702--yes; rollcall No. 703--no; rollcall No. 704--yes; rollcall No. 705--no; rollcall No. 706--no; rollcall No. 707--no; rollcall No. 708--no; rollcall No. 709--yes; rollcall No. 710--yes; rollcall No. 711--no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Professor Mitchel Resnick for receiving the Harold W. McGraw, Jr., Prize in Education. He is a Professor of Learning Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab, developing new technologies and activities that help children and adults engage in creative learning experiences.

Professor Resnick co-founded the Computer Clubhouse project, an international network of more than 100 after-school learning centers available to young people from low-income communities. It increases their access to technology, which can help improve their educational experience and better prepare them for the workforce. The Computer Clubhouse network has a strong global presence, with over 30 locations in countries as diverse as Mexico, Hungary, Israel, the Palestinian territories, India, and South Africa. It also still proudly serves Massachusetts youth, with a particular emphasis on reaching out to the many communities of Boston.

Professor Resnick's Lifelong Kindergarten research group developed the Programmable Bricks technology which helps children build and program their own robots. His research group also cultivated the Scratch programming environment and online community. It gives young people the tools they need to create their own stories or games and share their work with others online. Professor Resnick has worked for years to make technology fun and accessible--reaching out to students and helping them succeed in the classroom.

Professor Resnick earned his degree in physics from Princeton University. He then went on to MIT where he earned an MS and PhD in computer science. In 2010, Professor Resnick was awarded the Kids@Play prize as the top ``Digital Pioneer for Kids.'' He was also named one of the 30 ``most influential people affecting the advancement of technology in education'' by Tech & Learning magazine.

I congratulate Professor Resnick on his latest accomplishment and on all of the innovative work he has done over the years. I look forward to his continuing contributions to children's education.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week I missed several rollcall votes and I wish to state how I would have voted had I been present:

Rollcall No. 601--Yes.

Rollcall No. 603--No.

Rollcall No. 604--No.

Rollcall No. 605--Yes.

Rollcall No. 606--No.

Rollcall No. 608--No.

Rollcall No. 609--No.

Rollcall No. 610--Yes.

Rollcall No. 611--No.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as far as I'm concerned, is merely a punishment because some Members haven't liked some of the things the OCE has done. I will tell you that, having drafted the rule, I don't like everything they've done either, but the appropriate way to deal with that is to amend the rules of the House or to try to talk to them to amend their own rules.

There are ways to do the things that others have been concerned about, some of which I share. I have expressed my concern on certain issues to members of the OCE in the past. It's not to just pick a number and slash that number of 40 percent. That is merely, as far as I'm concerned, draconian punishment to say, We're the boss; you're not. It's not going to change one thing that the OCE does. It will simply make it a little bit more difficult for this House to maintain the integrity level that we have struggled so desperately to gain back over the years.

We've had our troubles. We will have problems in the future. Some of our colleagues will do something that none of us will like. The question is not that. The question is: How does the public see us?

I have a letter that I would like to submit to the Record that I think everybody got in their office today from the Campaign Legal Center, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. I don't agree with everything that each one of these organizations stands for either; however, they all agree that this agency, even with its flaws, has improved the reputation of this House when it comes to policing our own Members.

Again, I want to be clear: I do not think that they have done a perfect job. My guess is I don't think most Members think that the Ethics Committee has done a perfect job over the years. That's not the measure. If that's the measure, none of us would be in Congress. We couldn't get anything done because there is no such thing as perfection. The measure is simply: What has been done to improve the image of this House? And I think everyone in Washington who follows these things agrees that the creation of this group and the actions it has taken overall have improved the image of this House. And I would say that a cut of this level is simply a draconian measure to punish them for what they have done as opposed to try to improve what they do in the future.

Vote No on Watt Amendment To Weaken Office of Congressional Ethics

July 21, 2011.

Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose an amendment

by Representative Mel Watt that would gut the Office of

Congressional Ethics by reducing the funding for OCE by

$619,000 or 40 percent.

The recent dysfunctional performance by the House Ethics

Committee has only served to reinforce the critically

important role being played by the OCE in the House ethics

enforcement process.

The OCE, under bipartisan leadership, has done an

outstanding job in carrying out its mission to help protect

the integrity of the House. There is absolutely no basis for

reducing OCE's funding.

We strongly urge you to vote no on the Watt amendment.

Campaign Legal Center,

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,

Common Cause,

Democracy 21,

League of Women Voters,

Public Citizen,

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know about Roman law, and I'm a little shaky on English law as well, but I will tell you that it doesn't violate any American laws that I'm aware of. If it did, they would be subject to all kinds of legal proceedings against them.

I understand fully well that some Members didn't like voting for this. They don't like the idea of people other than Members of Congress looking at anything we do. I understand that. And there was a great attempt to try to balance that fear with a movement forward, which is what we did.

I'd like to point out very clearly that when the Congress changed from Democrat to Republican, there was no attempt by anybody that I'm aware of to change one aspect of this rule, not one aspect. That was the appropriate time. Had someone done it, I would have been happy to work with them.

I've expressed my concerns here. I've expressed them to the OCE. I've expressed them to other Members. I share some of these concerns. But I don't think it's an appropriate thing to simply wheel the old-fashioned political tool of a big, heavy draconian weapon and try to slash their budget and think that you're going to change it. You're not. And you will be perceived, this House will be perceived by the general public for what this is: simply an attempt to roll back our progress on policing our own activities.

I understand that that might make some people comfortable, but it's not the right thing to do and people here know that. This is payback. And I don't mind--I'm one of the few Members of this House who proudly call myself a politician. I understand payback, but let's call it what it is: We don't like what they do, and we're going to defund them. Don't pretend that something else is going on. That's what it is. It will be bad for the House of Representatives, and it will not change the things that people have expressed that they don't like.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment is perfectly fine with us, and I urge its adoption.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the full committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

While I understand the gentleman's concern about the accuracy of the FEMA maps, this bill does contain a 3-year delay of mandatory purchase and a 5-year phase-in thereafter. That's 8 years. We already have mechanisms in this bill that would insulate homeowners from the sticker shock of mandatory purchase while still alerting them to the fact that they actually live in a flood zone.

I am very concerned that, in the absence of any maps, we place our homeowners and communities in the dark about the risks they may be facing. This is why the bill does not delay the maps, themselves, but only the mandatory purchase requirement. So, while I understand the gentleman's concerns, I must oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the amendment is perfectly fine, and we hope that it will be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for a two- state solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. I believe peace can be achieved only through negotiations between the parties. I believe, further, that these negotiations must be based upon mutual respect and upon the unequivocal commitment of each to the rights of the other, including the right to live in peace and security in a sovereign state. Because I believe this, I supported H. Res. 268. I did not, however, vote ``yes'' because I felt the resolution was likely to promote those ends. I voted in the affirmative because I could not take exception to its substance.

I oppose and I believe the United States should continue to oppose a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians, with a veto in the Security Council, if necessary. I believe that Hamas should accept the conditions set forth by the Quartet--the UN, the EU, the Russian Federation, as well as the United States--to renounce violence and acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. That said, I am not sure that it is helpful to the Palestinians, or to Arab governments in transition to democracy, to threaten suspending assistance to the Palestinian Authority as they seek to bring the West Bank and Gaza closer to a position from which negotiations with Israel could take place. If the resolution had called for the outright suspension of aid, rather than the consideration of its suspension, I would have had more difficulty supporting it. I would prefer, too, that the resolution had encouraged Israel to take positive steps, such as limiting settlement expansion, towards reconciliation with its neighbors.

I look forward to constructive U.S. engagement in real bargaining, not just in an interminable ``peace process.'' I hope leaders in Israel and in Palestine will have the courage to present realistic options to their people, and I would like to see the United States foster serious diplomacy.